BABULAL Vs. KISHNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABULAL and Shriniwas filed an application Under Section 145, Cr. P.C. in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Churu on October 7, 1969, alleging that the respondents Ki hnaram, Jeetaram and others were illegally trying to interfere with the possession of the applicants over khasra Nos. 602, 604 and 606 (new) corresponding to 'Khasra' No. 207 (old) in village Ghanghoo, measuring 7 big has' 15 biswas', which the applicants claimed to be in their possession on the basis of a registered sale deed dated November 8 1968, executed by Mularam in favour of Mohanlal brother of the applicants. It was alleged that the respondents were trying to take over unlawful possession of the aforesaid land and there was imminent danger of breach of peace. The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Churu, passed a preliminary order on October 7, 1969, and issued notices to the opposite parties directing them to Me their written statement, affidavits and d cuments. The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate by his order dated October 9, 1969. attached the land in dispute and appointed the (sic) Tehsldar as the Receiver thereof. On November 4, 1969, the applicants filed two affidavits including one of Jeetaram, response -dent No. 4, in which he stated that he was growing vegetables on the land in dispute for the last eight years on behalf of the villagers of Ghanghoo, but during the previous year he grew vegetables in the disputed land after obtaining the permission of Babulal and Shriniwas applicants. He also stated in that affidavit that 25 days ago, the villagers asked him to grow vegetables in the said land and he did so on their request.

(2.) THE opposite parties submitted their reply on November 5, 1969 and asserted that the land in dispute belongs to the village and Jeetaram respondent was growing vegetables thereon on behalf of the village people and he took water for the cultivation from the public well, which was situated on the adjoining 'khasra' No. 206. They took the stand that Mulram, from whom the applicants claimed to have purchased the land in question by sale deed dated November 8, 1968, was neither a tenant nor was ever in possession of the disputed land and that he had no right to execute the sale -deed in respect of the said land. They further asserted that on a part of 'khasra' No. 207 there was a Government School situated and the remaining portion thereof was in possession of the village people and they got the same cultivated through Jeetaram Mali.

(3.) THE applicants submitted a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, against the aforesaid order, but the same was dismissed by the order dated June 23, 1971. The applicants have now come up in revision before this Court.